What with today’s decision reversing Chevron deference, I see no way that the bureaucrap’s rule on unfinished receivers stands.<\/p>\n
BLUF Garland v. Cargill: The Court\u2019s Textualists Stick to Their Guns<\/a><\/p>\n Because it involves guns,\u00a0Cargill v. Garland<\/a><\/em>\u00a0has been seen by supporters and opponents alike as a Second Amendment case. That is not really correct. Rather, it presents a question of basic statutory interpretation. And in answering that question,\u00a0Cargill<\/em>\u00a0is a triumph of textualism and separation of powers concerns over purpose-driven interpretation and legislative intent.<\/p>\n For the majority, the words on the paper are what matter, even if the Congress that wrote them might have done things differently. It does not matter if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck if it doesn\u2019t have the features that Congress used to define a duck.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n On the separation of powers front,\u00a0Cargill<\/em>\u00a0is a victory for congressional lawmaking authority. Administrative agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) cannot step in and rewrite statutes by administrative fiat just because Congress is not acting as quickly as they might wish.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Cargill<\/em>\u00a0concerns an effort by the ATF to ban a popular firearms accessory known as a \u201cbump stock\u201d through administrative action.<\/p>\n To shoot a semiautomatic rifle, a shooter generally uses his or her finger to pull back on the trigger. When the trigger is depressed, it releases the hammer which then strikes the firing pin which strikes a primer, igniting gunpowder in a cartridge, ultimately expelling a bullet and creating recoil. To fire a second shot, the trigger must reset, which typically means the shooter releases pressure on the trigger, allowing the trigger to move forward to reengage the hammer to restore the weapon to the ready to fire condition.<\/p>\n \u201cBump firing\u201d is a shooting method where a shooter uses the recoil of a firearm to push the trigger forward, allowing it to reset faster and thus shoot at a higher rate of fire. Bump firing does not necessarily require any specialized equipment. At its most basic level, a shooter who uses his or her shoulder to push a rifle forward against a stationary finger rather than pulling back on the trigger is engaged in \u201cbump\u201d firing. People can and have used basic household items like belt loops and rubber bands to facilitate bump firing.<\/p>\n \u201cBump stocks\u201d are more specialized firearms accessories that facilitate bump firing. Bump stocks allow the firearm, including the trigger, to slide backwards when fired, while a shooter\u2019s finger remains stationary. When met with a force, such as a shoulder pushing forward on the stock of a rifle, a bump stock allows the firearm to slide forward and reset. It may then contact a shooter\u2019s stationary finger and fire a subsequent round. The result is that a typical shooter can fire a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock faster than he or she could without one.<\/p>\n Under the\u00a0National Firearms Act<\/a>\u00a0and the Gun Control Act, a \u201cmachinegun\u201d is a gun that fires \u201cautomatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.\u201d Contrary to some of the rhetoric surrounding firearms, \u201cmachineguns\u201d are generally illegal for private citizens to possess, while semiautomatic weapons are not. This prohibition includes parts or combinations of parts designed and intended to convert a weapon into a machinegun.<\/p>\n \u201cOn more than 10 separate occasions over several administrations,\u201d the ATF concluded that bump stocks were not \u201cmachineguns.\u201d Then came the October 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, in which a gunman using weapons equipped with bump stocks murdered 58 people and wounded hundreds more. In response to the Las Vegas mass shooting, there was \u201ctremendous political pressure to outlaw bump stocks nationwide,\u201d including multiple proposed pieces of congressional legislation.<\/p>\n Rather than waiting for congressional action, the ATF choose to unilaterally adopt a final rule in 2018 purporting to classify bump stocks as machineguns, effectively outlawing them. This effectively retroactively declared millions of Americans to be criminals based on a change in \u201cinterpretation.\u201d<\/p>\n Cargill<\/em>\u00a0is a challenge brought by a bump stock owner to the ATF\u2019s rule.<\/p>\n In an opinion written by Justice Thomas, and joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, the Court held that the ATF exceeded its authority in attempting to reclassify bump stocks as \u201cmachineguns.\u201d In doing so, the Court turned to the text of the law.<\/p>\n To be a \u201cmachinegun,\u201d a weapon must fire more than one round \u201cby a single function of the trigger\u201d and \u201cautomatically.\u201d For the Court, the term \u201cfunction of the trigger\u201d means the mechanical function of a trigger\u2014not the shooter\u2019s finger. In a standard weapon, this \u201cmeans the physical movement of the trigger.\u201d<\/p>\n While a bump stock makes it easier for a shooter to shoot faster, it does not change the mechanical function of the trigger. For every shot, the trigger moves backwards, releasing the hammer that strikes the firing pin causing it to strike the primer and ultimately expel the bullet. For every shot, the trigger moves forward to reset by reengaging the hammer before firing again. This makes it different from a standard automatic weapon, such as an M16, where the trigger does not reset between each shot when engaged in automatic fire but instead is bypassed after the first shot.<\/p>\n Because the text of the law focuses on the \u201cfunction of the\u00a0trigger<\/em>,\u201d the movement (or lack thereof) of a shooter\u2019s trigger\u00a0finger<\/em>\u00a0is immaterial. It is the mechanical action of the trigger, not shooter input, that matters under the text of the law.<\/p>\n Because the trigger \u201cfunctions\u201d for every shot fired by a weapon equipped with a bump stock, it is not a machinegun.<\/p>\n Similarly, the Court determined that a weapon equipped with a bump stock does not fire \u201cautomatically,\u201d because it requires something more than just pulling the trigger, such as pushing forward with the shooter\u2019s shoulder to maintain bump fire.<\/p>\n The dissent, written by Justice Sotomayor and joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, takes issue with this interpretation. In effect, the dissent accuses the majority of taking an overly formalist approach to the definition of \u201cmachinegun.\u201d For the dissent, the point of the National Firearms Act was to limit guns that shoot really fast; the\u00a0how<\/em>\u00a0is less important than the\u00a0what<\/em>. In support of this, the dissent points to legislative history and to claims that a more technical interpretation renders the law ineffective.<\/p>\n In a concurrence, Justice Alito cuts to the heart of the dispute between the majority and the dissent: \u201cI joined the majority opinion of the Court because there is simply no other way to read the statutory language. There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted [the law] would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear and we must follow it.\u201d He went on to provide a rebuke to the ATF and a recommendation for a path forward for those who oppose bump stocks: \u201cThere is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law\u2014and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation.\u201d<\/p>\n As Justice Alito suggests, there is nothing in\u00a0Cargill<\/em>\u00a0that would prevent Congress from changing the National Firearms Act to further restrict bump stocks. Until and unless that happens, however, the ATF cannot do so unilaterally.<\/p>\n Over the last few years\u2014and particularly under the current administration\u2014the ATF has taken an aggressive approach to interpreting its own authority in formal rulemakings and administrative actions.\u00a0Cargill<\/em>\u00a0may be seen as a brushback for that aggressive posture. This has potential consequences both for \u201cmachinegun\u201d cases, which may be directly impacted by\u00a0Cargill<\/em>\u2019s interpretation of \u201cautomatic\u201d and \u201csingle function of the trigger,\u201d and for a number of challenges to ATF regulatory action, including challenges to the ATF\u2019s \u201cframe or receiver<\/a>\u201d rule and the \u201cengaged in the business<\/a>\u201d rule.<\/p>\n Fortunately, we will not have to wait too long to see if\u00a0Cargill<\/em>\u00a0stands alone or reflects a broader trend of checking ATF claims of authority. On April 22, 2024, the Court granted certiorari in\u00a0Garland v. VanDerStok<\/a><\/em>, a case challenging the ATF\u2019s \u201cframe or receiver\u201d rule as beyond the scope of the agency\u2019s authority. A decision in VanDerStok will likely come during the Court\u2019s next term.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" What with today’s decision reversing Chevron deference, I see no way that the bureaucrap’s rule on unfinished receivers stands. BLUF Fortunately, we will not have to wait too long to see if\u00a0Cargill\u00a0stands alone or reflects a broader trend of checking ATF claims of authority. On April 22, 2024, the Court granted certiorari in\u00a0Garland v. VanDerStok, … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,15,23,36],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102742","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bureaucraps","category-business","category-courts","category-gun-schtuff"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102742","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=102742"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102742\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":102745,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102742\/revisions\/102745"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=102742"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=102742"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=102742"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nFortunately, we will not have to wait too long to see if\u00a0Cargill<\/em>\u00a0stands alone or reflects a broader trend of checking ATF claims of authority. On April 22, 2024, the Court granted certiorari in\u00a0Garland v. VanDerStok<\/a><\/em>, a case challenging the ATF\u2019s \u201cframe or receiver\u201d rule as beyond the scope of the agency\u2019s authority. A decision in VanDerStok will likely come during the Court\u2019s next term.<\/p>\nBackground<\/h2>\n
What are Bump Stocks?<\/h3>\n
What is a \u201cMachinegun\u201d?<\/h3>\n
The Court\u2019s Decision\u2014Textualism and the Separation of Powers<\/h2>\n
What does it all mean?<\/h3>\n